Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31748223›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial.

Ulla-Britt Wennerholm, Sissel Saltvedt, Anna Wessberg, Mårten Alkmark, Christina Bergh, Sophia Brismar Wendel, Helena Fadl, Maria Jonsson, Lars Ladfors, Verena Sengpiel and 6 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialEquivalence Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05424445 (Orally Administered Misoprostol Solution), which is not on this map. Cited by 80 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
15.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05424445 phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Orally Administered Misoprostol Solution (Cytotec®) Versus Orally Administered Misoprostol as a Tablet (Angusta®) for Induction of Labor in Women With Mixed Parity and an Unfavorable Cervix, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorKarolinska InstitutetRan2022 to 2023Enrolled884ConditionsInduced Vaginal DeliveryArmsMisoprostol
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 170 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Labor induction at 41Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Time of day of induction impacts the total duration of labor.American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Ulla-Britt WennerholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden ulla-britt.wennerholm@vgregion.se.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-2226
Sissel SaltvedtDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1615-2829
Anna WessbergInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8457-9651
Mårten AlkmarkDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-5648-3505
Christina BerghDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6049-7731
Sophia Brismar WendelDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9401-8062
Helena FadlDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2691-7525
Maria JonssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2657-1958
Lars LadforsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7512-2059
Verena SengpielDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3608-7430
Jan WesströmCenter for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1907-1071
Göran WennergrenDepartment of Paediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-7010-7191
Anna-Karin WikströmDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6431-3303
Helen EldenInstitute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-0000-0476
Olof StephanssonDepartment of Medicine, Solna, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1528-4563
Henrik HagbergDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3962-1448
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEUppsala University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEUniversity of Gothenburg · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SEÖrebro University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate if induction of labour at 41 weeks improves perinatal and maternal outcomes in women with a low risk pregnancy compared with expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks.

designMulticentre, open label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

setting14 hospitals in Sweden, 2016-18.

participants2760 women with a low risk uncomplicated singleton pregnancy randomised (1:1) by the Swedish Pregnancy Register. 1381 women were assigned to the induction group and 1379 were assigned to the expectant management group.

interventionsInduction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite perinatal outcome including one or more of stillbirth, neonatal mortality, Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes, pH less than 7.00 or metabolic acidosis (pH <7.05 and base deficit >12 mmol/L) in the umbilical artery, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, intracranial haemorrhage, convulsions, meconium aspiration syndrome, mechanical ventilation within 72 hours, or obstetric brachial plexus injury. Primary analysis was by intention to treat.

resultsThe study was stopped early owing to a significantly higher rate of perinatal mortality in the expectant management group. The composite primary perinatal outcome did not differ between the groups: 2.4% (33/1381) in the induction group and 2.2% (31/1379) in the expectant management group (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.73; P=0.90). No perinatal deaths occurred in the induction group but six (five stillbirths and one early neonatal death) occurred in the expectant management group (P=0.03). The proportion of caesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, or any major maternal morbidity did not differ between the groups.

conclusionsThis study comparing induction of labour at 41 weeks with expectant management and induction at 42 weeks does not show any significant difference in the primary composite adverse perinatal outcome. However, a reduction of the secondary outcome perinatal mortality is observed without increasing adverse maternal outcomes. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously, induction of labour ought to be offered to women no later than at 41 weeks and could be one (of few) interventions that reduces the rate of stillbirths.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN26113652.

Indexed as

Gestational AgeInfant, Newborn, DiseasesLabor, InducedAdultCesarean SectionFemaleHumansInfantInfant MortalityInfant, NewbornIntention to Treat AnalysisPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeStillbirthSwedenTerm Birth

Identifiers

PMID31748223
PMCPMC6939660
OpenAlexW2990323111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.